5 ms·

It doesn't even pretend to.

• kcplate 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • eapressoandcats 2y ago
    So… people have literally already been deported to jails in El Salvador without due process, with the government claiming that they are from a Venezuelan gang. Others have had green cards revoked and been arrested for deportation for the crime of criticizing Israel. At this point it’s hard to see how worrying about a lack of habeus corpus is an exaggeration.
    • kcplate 2y ago
      Detention without bail for the duration of their due process is legal for certain crimes (actually I believe it’s even mandatory) that a non-citizen is accused of in the INA. There also does not appear to be any language in the INA that specifies detention has to be within the US borders either.
      • sirtaj 2y ago
        Assuming they are allowed lawyers, I suppose the lawyers have to fly to El Salvador too? When they are brought before judges, are the judges going to be in El Salvador?
        • kcplate 2y ago
          I’m not suggesting that it’s efficient. I’m suggesting that it’s apparently legal at least on its face.
          • deleted 2y ago
            [deleted]
          • AlecSchueler 2y ago
            Why did the court order against it if this is so clear?
            • kcplate 2y ago
              Government often tests the boundaries or clarity of a law by taking an action they believe is a valid interpretation of it assuming there is no court or SCOTUS direct ruling on the subject to clarify. Lower courts may intervene, and ultimately SCOTUS decides and sometimes overrides the lower courts. Just because a judge has a different opinion doesn’t mean they are right. Just like the government’s interpretation might be wrong. The government is testing boundaries here…soon laws will be clarified and those boundaries will be determined. In the interim the theater aspect of all of this has an effect to discourage illegal immigration and encourage self deportation.
              • AlecSchueler 2y ago
                I'm not saying the judges are right, just that it's not so obviously legal if the courts are raising questions about it and if there's a process being initiated to seek clarifications. > In the interim the theater aspect of all of this has an effect to discourage illegal immigration and encourage self deportation. Also legal immigration as they've revoked green cards from people who emigrated legally and some of those people have apparently been "disappeared." It's not about "illegals" and it's dangerous at this point to continue spreading this misinformation.
      • AlotOfReading 2y ago
        International detention is a pretty straightforward violation of article 13 of the ICCPR, which the us is a signatory to. It's probably also a violation of the due process clause, because the Constitution only applies to non-citizens within the sovereign territory of the US as determined during the Guantanamo bay decisions.
      • eapressoandcats 2y ago
        For the most part none of the people deported or held have even been accused of one of those crimes. Most of the Venezuelans have been deported under the Alien Enemies Act, under an extremely tenuous reading of what an “invasion” is, by claiming they are members of a gang which is “invading” the country. If they can read the law this way then it’s not clear we have rule of law anymore. Anyway, the only court case testing this law didn’t turn on determining whether the members were factually members of the class. In this case there are serious questions about whether the people deported were actually members of the gang. Even in WWII relevant nationality individuals went before a civilian board to determine if they were of the nationality to deport. The people being disappeared from colleges are being held and deported under the theory that they “pose a threat” to the United States, based on the Secretary of State making that determination, which again, not really due process. They are also being whisked to a more favorable circuit for their habeus petitions, which is pretty suspect. Arguably maybe citizens will be afforded an actual appearance before a judge, but remember that they can just claim you’re a member of a Venezuelan gang and whisk you away. And once you’re gone how do you prove otherwise? As far as being within US borders, that’s a strange argument given that no statute requires imprisonment within the US borders… I guess it’s legally untested but it seems insane to me that detention could be allowed to be under non-US custody. Among other things, that would move those detained literally outside of US jurisdiction. I don’t think it’s been done outside of espionage situations of dubious legality with people not resident in the US. Even the Guantanamo bay prisoners were under US jurisdiction.
    • petre 2y ago
      Quick, name a former European state that was deporting people without due process in the previous century.
  • runako 2y ago
    Folks are being deported now without going in front of a judge. Let's stipulate without reservation that the US has the right to deport them expeditiously. Let's buy everything the administration says about how bad these folks are and how important it is to remove them immediately. However, it is still important for these folks to go in front of a judge because the government has a responsibility to show evidence that the people they plan to deport are who they say they are, that this collection of atoms is the person named X. If Person X says they should not be deported because they are a citizen, a court is the proper place to adjudicate that. Let Person X bring purported proof of citizenship, let the court assess the validity of such proof. ICE and other law enforcement agents are not equipped to do any of this in a neutral fashion. A key objection right now is that we are skipping this long-established legal process because it is too slow to serve political ends. (It is slow in part because we don't care enough to spend more money to make it faster.) Without bringing folks before a judge, all of this gets short-circuited. The inevitable result of skipping judicial adjudication at scale will be that US citizens will end up in foreign prisons with their only recourse being lucky enough to have people in the US going to extreme lengths to locate them and find a sympathetic court. This is quite literally the entire point of habeas corpus, the reason why it has been part of English legal tradition for nearly 1000 years (US inherited this via English Common Law). It's not going to end well that an allegation can have someone rapidly deported, without that person having the chance to e.g. show their proof of citizenship. Edit: Most people do not carry proof of citizenship on their person. Most US driver's licenses, even REAL IDs, do not display citizenship status. For example, Georgia does not accept REAL IDs issued by Georgia as proof of citizenship. Further, a person walking on the street (or in their home) may not even be carrying their ID. We have judicial processes because courtrooms are neater than the messy processes that occur in the field.
  • addicted 2y ago
    People were literally sent to El Salvador against a court order stopping the government from doing so. Where’s the exaggeration? Also, the quotes you’ve excerpted do not mention due process even once, but do in fact mention that those people may perhaps be sent to El Salvador. So your own quote only contains evidence for people being sent to El Salvador, and contains no evidence for them being provided due process, not even a “perhaps” they may be provided due process. The amount of indoctrination and brain twisting it takes to take a quote that does not mention due process, but does mention the possibility of people being sent to El Salvador, and use that as evidence that there will be due process but people will not be sent to El Salvador absolutely astonishes me.
    • kcplate 2y ago
      [flagged]
    • pixxel 2y ago
      [dead]
  • recursivecaveat 2y ago
    A sentence does not imply a judge. It is just a punishment by some authority, could be a hall monitor sentencing you to detention even. I guess I also have higher expectations for the president than writing about they will "perhaps" go after their political opponents extra-constitutionally.
    • kcplate 2y ago
      I suspect that in the case of people being convicted of “terrorist acts” and going to jail for 20 years a judge will be involved.
      • eapressoandcats 2y ago
        Except they literally just sent Venezuelans to an El Salvador prison without a judge being involved. The reason people are freaking out about this is because it actually happened already.
        • kcplate 2y ago
          > Except they literally just sent Venezuelans to an El Salvador prison without a judge being involved Judge being involved…yet. There is a lot of flexibility within the INA and its subsequent legal modifications to detain a noncitizen while their case is being heard. My guess is the weakest argument for the government in all of this is that they were actually physically removed from the US prior to their hearing being completed. Their detention is lawful. Where they are detained might have to be remedied by SCOTUS.
          • eapressoandcats 2y ago
            We don’t know if their detention is lawful. Whether their detention is lawful hasn’t been litigated yet, but the fact they there’s a preliminary injunction against them doing it more that was upheld by the DC circuit court indicates that it is not lawful.